May 5-6, 2005 - BIBCO/CONSER Operations Committee Meeting

Joint BIBCO/CONSER Meeting on May 5, 2005

The joint meeting of the BIBCO and CONSER Operations Committees opened with a welcome from the Chair of the PCC, Roxanne Sellberg (Northwestern University). Sellberg extended a special welcome to new committee members and first-time attendees. She then mentioned the PCC Policy Committee's work on updating the PCC's Tactical Plan (2004-2006) and the PCC's Strategic Plan (2006-2012), and the impact of that work on the future of the PCC. Sellberg invited audience comment on the Tactical and Strategic Plans. (An open discussion of the Policy Committee's work on the Plans was scheduled for the meeting's afternoon session).

Access Level for Remote Access Electronic Resources

David Reser (acting Digital Projects Coordinator, Office of the Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access, Library of Congress) began the meeting with a presentation of the Library of Congress' (LC) pilot program on access-level records for remote access electronic resources. The development of an access level MARC/AACR2 catalog record was proposed under the LC's FY03/04 Strategic Plan. An LC project team was established to work with a contract consultant, and with representatives from LC cataloging and reference areas, on the development of access level records.

Basing its work on related modeling efforts (FRBR, Logical Structure of AACR, Functional Analysis of MARC21), the team determined the context of control for electronic resources (Web guides, MODS (Metadata Object Description Schema) records, and MARC/AACR2 cataloging) and identified the goals of access level records (functionality, cost-effectiveness, and conformity with standards). A core data set was developed after analyzing the four generic user tasks (Find, Identify, Select, and Obtain). The data set limited redundancy whenever possible, and explicitly identified common data elements that were not to be provided in access records. A controlled test was conducted: 100 records were cataloged at full level, 100 records were cataloged at access level, and 25 records overlapped both groups to aid in comparing results.

Five fully trained LC electronic resources catalogers completed the test. A data collection sheet accompanied each resource to be cataloged. Statistics were compiled at the end of the test. Results showed that a full level record for an electronic resource was cataloged in an average of one hour, forty-two minutes (1:42); an access level record for an electronic resource was cataloged in an average of forty-six minutes (0:46). Related statistics on authority creation and title access showed similar ratio results. Fewer name headings were required per the access level core data set, and fewer corporate name added entries were necessary. Catalogers in the test reacted positively to the access level approach.

Questions and comments at the end of the presentation centered on: encoding level (default mode for access level records will be encoding level "3"); functionality issues (a suggestion to have a follow-up test for researchers or reference librarians to see how access to the records is affected); implications of lack of publication dates in access level records (a 260 publication field is a common data element not provided in an access level record, although an 008 date byte is recorded); classification access (an 050 $a is included in an access level record); the contrast of contents notes (505) and summary notes (520) in access level records (Web resources often have contents changes; summary notes may remain more current); implications of subject access (653 uncontrolled index terms may be applied in some cases of doubt in lieu of proposing a new LCSH subject heading); the importance of identifying the user of access level records; the value of an analysis of member institution enhancements to access level records. The .PDF copy of Reser's PowerPoint presentation is available at: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/reser_test.pdf

Utilities and Standing Committee Reports

OCLC Report

Cynthia Whitacre (OCLC) reported that the 60 millionth record was added to OCLC's WorldCat on Monday, May 2. OCLC's migration to the browser and client-based version of Connexion is on target for conversion completion in June 2005. Connexion release 1.3 is now available (1.3 has CJK and Arabic access); the next release, with Cyrillic, Hebrew, and Greek access, will be available this summer. Whitacre also reported that work is progressing on the implementation of Bibliographic level "i" (integrating resource) and on the implementation of the repeatable 260 field.

RLG Report

Ed Glazier (RLG) discussed the RLG database migration originally scheduled for completion on March 1, 2005; this target date was not able to be met. Although improvement is still being made to functionality, there still are some stability issues to be addressed. The entire RLG database was copied in November 2004; interim records created after that date were to be added by March 1, 2004. That aspect of the update has taken much longer than expected. It is not possible to update these interim records, although that problem should be remedied by mid-May. The NACO application will be the last module to be migrated to the new environment. A new feature to generate authority records from bibliographic records in RLIN, and to generate authority records from bibliographic records in the local system, will be available when the NACO application is activated.

PCC Standing Committee Reports:

Standing Committee on Automation

Committee chair Gary Charbonneau (Indiana University) summarized the final report of the Task Group on Linking Entries, which was discussed and approved at ALA Midwinter in Boston. The task group examined the way that various integrated library systems handle the display of linking entry information, noting that how well such information is displayed in a particular library's system may be more a function of that library's system implementation, rather than a function of the capabilities of the system itself.

The task group presented three recommendations: 1) integrated library systems should provide for the intelligible display of linking entry information in the form of notes; 2) links from linking entry fields should enable OPAC users to find related records without re-keying data; 3) the potential of alternate displays of the relationships among records and titles should continue to be explored – for example, is it useful to have a "genealogy" of a serial?

Charbonneau also reported on the work of the SCA Task Group on Normalization. This new task group is the result of an ALA Midwinter discussion. Committee member Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) drafted a charge for this new task group to investigate the normalization issue in all of its aspects. Strawn also agreed to chair the group. The PCC Steering Committee reviewed the draft and has approved it in principle. The deliverables of the task group are: 1) to identify the various purposes to which normalization has been or may be used in library systems and the kind of normalization appropriate to each; 2) to develop a detailed normalization scheme, to supplement the existing NACO scheme, for the core portion of the MARC character set; 3) to investigate an extension of the normalization scheme for the core MARC character set to Arabic, Cyrillic, Greek, and Hebrew characters; 4) to identify the principles for the extension of the normalization scheme for other alphabetic scripts; 5) to identify the principles for the extension of the normalization scheme to other non-alphabetic scripts. The task group's proposed membership has been identified. After the draft charge has been reviewed by the full SCA, it will be submitted to the PCC Policy Committee for final approval.

Standing Committee on Standards

Committee chair Paul Weiss (University of California San Diego) discussed his and the SCS's work on summarizing the PCC comments on the draft for AACR3 Part 1. Comments on the draft from BIBCO, CONSER, SCS members, and other PCC members were condensed to 25 pages, and then sent to the Committee on Cataloging: Description & Access (CC:DA), who is charged with reviewing and developing positions on proposals to rule revisions within ALA and in consultation with other organizations. The comments from CC:DA were then sent to the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR (JSC).

PCC Chair Roxanne Sellberg (Northwestern University) summarized the PCC comments: the new draft should contain broad and clear principles, have fewer detailed rules, allow for more cataloger judgment; address more levels of cataloging, allow records to be compatible with AACR2 records, address copy cataloging, be training compatible, and allow for ease of transfer from AACR2.

Standing Committee on Training

Committee Chair David Banush (Cornell University) reported on the many training efforts that the SCT currently has in process. There currently are five active training groups working on training courses. The joint ALCTS/PCC Task Force to Develop Name and Authority Training will offer its full workshop as a pre-conference to the ALA Annual Meeting in June 2005. The ALCTS/PCC Task Force to Develop Series Training and the PCC/SCT/CCS SAC Task Force on Library of Congress Classification Training were formed late in 2004 and are in the initial stages of planning their courses; their work will be completed over the next two years. LC's Cooperative Cataloging Team is revising the NACO Participants' Manual and will have a draft prepared by June 2005, in time for the ALA Annual Meeting. As a result of the SCT meeting at ALA Midwinter in Boston, where committee members agreed that the SACO Participants' Manual was in need of updating, the SCT chair formed a new task group to revise the manual.

The joint PCC/CCS Committee on Continuing Education Training Materials has recently formed a task force to review the LCSH workshop documentation. The task force will report to the committee chair, Ana Cristán (LC), recommending changes in the material. The ALCTS/PCC training materials and courses from other sources are available to other libraries on LC's Cataloging Distribution Service's (CDS) Website. LC's Cataloger's Learning Workshop Editorial Team is drafting guidelines for authors, publishers, sponsors, and purchasers, with the goal of smoothing the process of providing access to training materials. Carolyn Sturtevant (LC) and Ana Cristán of the SCT participate on the Cataloger's Learning Workshop Editorial Team. The PCC Policy Committee asked SCT for a representative to work on a new group that will examine the viability of different levels of bibliographic access for Web resources. Greta DeGroat represents the SCT on this group.

Monograph Serial Conflicts

Linda Geisler (Serial Record Division, LC) discussed the cancellation of LC monograph records in the Library of Congress Database (LCDB). LC has always followed a one format policy when deciding whether to catalog an item as a monograph or as a serial. If an item were cataloged as a serial, any existing monograph records for the same item were canceled in favor of the serial. Serial cataloging staff has always completed the database maintenance required by this policy. However, it has become more and more difficult to justify the amount of time required by this time consuming process. In light of this, LC is considering no longer canceling all monographs when it is determined that an item is a serial. Preliminary thinking on the proposed policy change has included these two features:

1) In some cases, monograph records will be permitted to remain in the LCDB and the utilities, even though a serial record exists for the title. The CONSER record will reflect that the serial began in a certain year, but the LCDB and the utilities will contain monographic records for the same title

2) The use of reciprocal 78X links between the serial record and the record for the latest volume cataloged as a monograph is being considered

The discussion prompted by this presentation centered on the impact of a local institution-specific policy change on the national/international database. A local practice should not be reflected in any way in the CONSER record. Local information should remain in local records. The addition of links to serial and monograph records would essentially be adding a local link to a national level record. Formerly, canceled LC monographs could be readily identified in OCLC by use of encoding level "J," even though the record was deleted from LCDB. This allowed libraries to continue using the monographic treatment, if so desired. The proposed LC policy change would result in monograph records not being canceled, so encoding level "J" would no longer be input in those monograph records. There would be considerable training implications to this change, since libraries train technical staff to watch for this encoding byte.

Action item: The LC Serial Record Division will use input from this discussion to refine its planning.

Coping with PCC/CONSER Authenticated Copy for the Same Title Treated as Both a Serial and as a Monograph

James Castrataro (Indiana University) led this discussion. When new evidence appears about a specific title that forces catalogers to reconsider the original decision to catalog the item as a serial or as a monograph, should there be a mechanism to mark such records in the national files?

The questions for discussion were: 1) Do CONSER and BIBCO members see a need for marking a record when different treatment is deemed more appropriate? 2) What mechanisms could be put in place to mark duplicate PCC records? One possibility would be an 042 field coded xpcc to parallel what happens in serials. This option would preserve the original encoding level of the record, indicating that the record met PCC standards in other respects, but that it is no longer a part of the regular BIBCO file of records. The code would be documented in MARC21 and would be applicable to RLIN PCC libraries as well; 3) Who would have the responsibility for reporting duplicate monograph records and ensuring that they are properly marked? 4) Should the responsibility for handling these requests rotate among the members of the CONSER Operations Committee? 5) If such a reporting mechanism is seen to be needed for reporting monographs, is there also a need for BIBCO participants to identify CONSER serial copy that needs to be de-authenticated?

Discussion of the questions highlighted problems that might be involved with developing a workflow for marking the records that can be shared by CONSER and BIBCO members. Also, since BIBCO does not have a single host database, how would OCLC and RLIN databases be kept in synch?

Action item: Les Hawkins (LC) and Castrataro will develop a charge for a PCC task group to research authentication/de-authentication issues.

Discussion of RDA (AACR3) JSC Update

Dr. Barbara Tillett (Cataloging Support and Policy Office Chief, LC) who is the LC representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (JSC), presented an update on the April 24-28, 2005 JSC meeting held in Chicago. Dr. Tillett announced to those present that they were among the first to hear the exciting news from the meeting. Dr. Tillett referred the audience to the Web page for the JSC:
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/index.html

At the meeting, the JSC reviewed the responses to the draft of Part I of the new edition of AACR in the context of the goals in the JCS strategic plan to develop a new edition of AACR, and in the context of the wider environment.

The feedback from the responses to the draft indicated that the goals in the strategic plan for AACR are still seen as valid, however, there was some dissatisfaction with the arrangement of the draft, particularly with respect to the separation between general rules and supplementary rules, and the scope of the supplementary chapters for specific types of content and specific types of media. There was also a call by some constituencies for the code to be modeled on metadata standards used by other communities, and feedback that the language needs to be clearer and more direct, and that library jargon should be avoided.

The JSC affirmed that a new edition is still the best way to achieve the goals in the strategic plan, but agreed that a new approach was required. A new working title was chosen: "Resource Description and Access" (RDA). RDA will be aligned more directly with FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAR (Functional Requirements for Authority Records) models. Instructions for recording data will be presented independently of guidelines for data presentation, and the layout and formatting of instructions will be more "user-friendly." RDA will be a digital venture: it will be a Web-based product; it will be a tool for describing and accessing digital material; and the resulting records will be usable in today's and tomorrow's digital environment.

The rules in RDA will be divided into three parts: resource description; access points for persons, families, and corporate bodies, and citations for related works, expressions, manifestations, and items; and the formulation of name and title access points and other data used for authority control.

A prospectus outlining the new approach will be prepared to facilitate consultation with stakeholders and to provide context for constituency review of individual parts of RDA as they become available. The JSC agreed that there needs to be increased consultation with stakeholders for the new edition. The prospectus will be accompanied by tables of contents for the General Introduction and all three parts as well as sample presentations of guidelines and instructions.

Proposed timeline for RDA:

May 2005-July 2005: Development of prospectus
Oct. 2005-April 2006: Completion of draft of Part I, and constituency review
May 2006-Sept. 2006: Completion of draft of Part II, and constituency review
Oct. 2006-April 2007: Completion of draft of Part III, and constituency review
May 2007-Sept. 2007: Completion of General Introduction, Appendices, and Glossary
2008: Publication

The audience responded positively to Dr. Tillett's presentation and to the JSC's new approach. In response to a question from the audience, Dr. Tillett reaffirmed that the review process for RDA will be different from the review process for the draft of AACR3 Part I. Dr. Tillett was asked about the prospectus. She stressed that the prospectus will be an outline, and that the intention is to give a view of what will be included in RDA, not to provide all the details.

(Notes above taken in part from Dr. Tillett's "Final" report on the JSC meeting outcomes, dated May 12, 2005)

OCLC's "FRBR in 21st Century Catalogs: an Invitational Workshop"

Paul Weiss (University of California San Diego), attended OCLC's "FRBR in 21st Century Catalogs: an Invitational Workshop, " held at OCLC on May 2-4, 2005. Dr. Barbara Tillett (LC) and Judy Kuhagen (LC) also attended. The workshop, sponsored by OCLC and the IFLA FRBR Review Group, was a venue for implementors, vendors, catalogers, scholars, teachers, end-users, etc. to share views and expectations and exchange ideas on the FRBR (Functional Requirements in Bibliographic Records) conceptual model. The discussions and reports at the workshop centered on the implementation of FRBR as a design tool.

Weiss reported that the workshop consisted of five themed sessions: 1) Aggregates in FRBR; 2) Relationships in FRBR; 3) FRANAR/FRAR (Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records/Functional Requirements in Authority Records) State-of-the-art and Consequences for Implementation and Subject Access in FRBR; 4) Implementation of FRBR; 5) Interaction with the Library Community and Beyond.

At the last session, Jay Jordan, OCLC President and CEO, spoke on FRBR and how it is driving much of OCLC's work. Weiss discussed a workshop presentation on FRBR as an object model, and outlined a discussion of the relationships between FRBR and CIDOC CRM (International Committee of Documentation's Conceptual Reference Model). CIDOC CRM is an ontological concept of fundamental categories and their relationships. Weiss also noted the presentation by Godfrey Rust on "Ontologyx," a contextual model for providing solutions to data inoperability. Related to this model are rights information and the role of the Electronic Resources Management Initiative (ERMI), a project of the Digital Library Federation (DLF).

Weiss mentioned that many of the presentations from the workshop are available on the workshop's Web page: http://www.oclc.org/research/events/frbr-workshop/default.htm

ISSN Report

Regina Reynolds (LC) attended the ISSN Standard Revision Working Group Meeting, held in Paris on April 25-26, 2005. Reynolds reported on the meeting, and referred the audience to the official ISO Website for information on the ISSN revision: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/iso/tc46sc9/wg5/wg5new.htm

A summary of the April 25-26, 2005 meeting will be posted on that site. The third draft of the standard (dated April 18, 2005) was heavily revised at the April 25-26 meeting; a new draft will be forthcoming.

Planning for Multiple 260 Fields

Ed Glazier (RLG) led an open discussion on the redefinition of MARC field 260. In 2001 field 260 was redefined as repeatable to account for publisher changes over time. OCLC and RLG have not implemented the repeatable 260, but will soon be able to with their new systems. For the repeatable 260, OCLC and RLG would prefer that the PCC establish a group to develop standards and guidelines for using and coding the repeatable 260 before implementation. The group would recommend how a repeatable 260 might be best implemented for input and display.

Glazier opened the topic to audience discussion. Would all publishers be recorded? The National Library of Medicine uses MARC field 269 and field 260, distinguishing between original publisher and current publisher, and recording only those two publishers. There are considerable maintenance issues involved with recording multiple publishers. How would the data be displayed? There was general audience agreement on a need to change. Users in the publishing community and in reference service areas are often baffled by current practice.
There is a need to modify treatment Area 7 and Area 4 to strive for a consistent policy, enabling better data display.

Action item: Les Hawkins (LC) will organize a PCC task group to research the issues raised by the repeatable 260 field. Hawkins already has a couple of CONSER and BIBCO volunteers for the group. Anyone interested in serving on this group should contact Hawkins (lhaw@loc.gov)

PCC Vision and Mission Statement

PCC Strategic Plan, 2006-2012
PCC Tactical Plan, 2004-2006

PCC Chair Roxanne Sellberg and PCC Chair Emeritus Carlen Ruschoff led a discussion and encouraged audience comment and participation in the updating of the PCC Vision and Mission Statement, and in the updating of the PCC Strategic and Tactical Plans. Work on these updates was an agenda item at the PCC Policy Committee's November 2004 meeting.

Sellberg noted that her term as PCC Chair may be remembered as the "year of the plans" because of the efforts that are being directed to updating the PCC's governing documentation. Sellberg mentioned the timetable of revising the current PCC Strategic and Tactical Plans: 2004 for the Tactical Plan, and 2006 for the Strategic Plan. It is essential that the updated plans comprise a short and focused group of attainable objectives that could be achieved in two years. This will serve as a platform for the PCC's focus for the future five to seven years.

A task group led by Ruschoff examined the PCC's Vision and Mission Statement. The task group was established at the PCC Policy Committee's November 2004 meeting, with the charge to determine whether the core purposes in the statement continue to serve the cataloging and library community in the 21st century. Ruschoff presented the Draft Report of the Task Group on the PCC Mission Statement and discussed the group's work. The task force identified major trends in the cataloging profession, and then examined the existing mission statement to determine the elements that should be retained. Starting with a list of assumptions, the group identified the following roles for the PCC: a role in establishing and promoting standards; a role in the creation of good cataloging and in the promotion of cost-effective solutions to cataloging problems; a role in metadata promotion; a role in supporting efforts to derive standard cataloging records created according to standards established by other communities; a role in the creation of records for unpublished and uncataloged materials residing in member libraries; a role in the promotion and use of commercially created data for use in local systems; a role in embracing the PCC's core activities, while supporting new access mechanisms; a role in the education of catalogers; and a role in advocating the needs of the end user. The task group's proposed PCC Mission Statement:

The Program for Cooperative Cataloging supports access to information resources through cooperative efforts to increase cost-effective and timely availability of authoritative records. These records are created within the AACR/MARC community or derived from other bibliographic files and resources according to accepted standards. The Program assists with the promulgation of standards, develops education opportunities and training for catalogers, and influences the development of discovery tools in its support of record creation activity.

Ruschoff opened the topic for audience discussion. Paul Weiss (University of California San Diego) suggested the addition of "and use" following the word "availability" in the statement's first sentence, and the use of the phrase "traditional and other methods" to replace the phrase "other bibliographic files and resources" in the second sentence. Weiss also asked which standards were meant by "accepted standards" in the second sentence. Sellberg replied that the term in the statement was purposely vague in order to encompass more than one specific standard.

Sellberg noted that the work of the PCC already encompasses many of the missions outlined in the new statement, but that the statement is now being updated to reflect that fact. She also noted that, in the original statement, "records" referred to bibliographic records; in the new statement, "records" is purposely vague. A question was raised on identifying the end-user. There is a large range of end-users, and we cannot assume that end-users are the same. Do we gear our work towards the most "naïve" user? Sellberg answered that chances are that the specialist is our prime end-user, although this is a topic to consider in the future.

Sellberg sensed and verbalized a comfort level on the part of the audience with the direction of the new Mission Statement, and closed the discussion with a welcome to Mechael Charbonneau (Indiana University), a new member on the PCC Policy Committee.

Incorporating the comments made at the meeting, the PCC Mission Statement would read:

The Program for Cooperative Cataloging supports access to information resources through cooperative efforts to increase cost-effective and timely availability and use of authoritative records. These records are created within the AACR/MARC community or derived from traditional and other methods according to accepted standards. The Program assists with the promulgation of standards, develops education opportunities and training for catalogers, and influences the development of discovery tools in its support of record creation activity.

Action item: Ruschoff will summarize the comments and share them with the PCC Policy Committee.

Sellberg provided an overview of the PCC Policy Committee's work on updating the PCC Tactical Plan. At the November 2004 meeting, the Policy Committee identified seven priorities for guiding the work of the PCC over the next two years. These priorities were selected from the results of a survey of PCC policy-level representatives, and from interviews with key leaders in the PCC. The seven priorities were: 1) training; 2) automation support; 3) partnerships with the publishing community; 4) partnerships with information providers (cataloging vendors, etc.); 5) metadata strategies and standards; 6) raising community awareness; and 7) developing policy-level leadership.

Sellberg mentioned a few topics that did not make the list: the international component of the PCC, which includes Web-based training; "branding" issues – what are PCC records and how they are marked; and increasing PCC membership and contributions. Although these topics did not make the "final cut" for the 2004-2006 Tactical Plan, Sellberg noted that they are important considerations for the future work on the PCC Strategic Plan.

A general discussion of the objectives of the Tactical Plan 2004-2006 ensued. A question was posed on Goal 1.2.5: "Assess with the publishing community possibilities for the flow of bibliographic data among library and publisher databases. Who: CONSER Coordinator." Because the contact person is the CONSER Coordinator, does the goal apply to serials only, since the topic reaches far beyond the world of serials? The goal is not necessarily limited to serials, although it was determined that this would be a good starting point for the implementation of the goal. With publisher assistance, a test of the Serials Release Notification format of ONIX is being explored by the CONSER Publication Patterns Initiative. LC's e-CIP Program is an example of how goal 1.2.5 could be applied to monographic records; publisher-supplied data is added to CIP monographic records as part of the e-CIP Program.

It was noted that Tactical Plan Goal 2.1.2: "Collaborate with the Library of Congress to test the viability of different levels of bibliographic control for Web resources" was already being implemented as a result of LC's pilot program Access Level for Remote Access Electronic Resources. David Reser (LC) presented an overview of the pilot program earlier in the morning. Any BIBCO institutions interested in testing the access level record should contact Carolyn Sturtevant (cast@loc.gov) or David Reser (dres@loc.gov).

Tactical Plan Goal 3.1.6: "Strengthen training and documentation support for the efforts of libraries to maintain NACO and BIBCO participation" will be discussed at the BIBCO OpCo meeting on May 6.

Sellberg presented background and updated the audience on Tactical Plan Goal 3.3.3: "Undertake a redesign of the Program's Web presence with a view toward making the Website the Program's primary vehicle for communication, marketing, and access to all PCC-related information." LC staff is responsible for the PCC Website redesign because of federal regulations. The Library of Congress' entire Web presence is currently being updates, and the PCC Website, as a subset of the Library's Website, is included in the update.

Sellberg closed the presentation with the promise that more information about the PCC Strategic Plan would be presented at the ALA Annual Meeting in Chicago in June 2005. She then closed the day's meeting with another round of thanks to all participants.

BIBCO Operations Committee Meeting May 6th 2005

BIBCO Coordinator Carolyn Sturtevant (LC) opened the meeting with a welcome to all attendees, and extended a special welcome to all new attendees. Sturtevant thanked the BIBCO OpCo rotating members whose terms will be expiring in September 2005: Sherman Clarke (NYU); Emily Hicks (University of Dayton); and Steve Uthoff (GPO), and welcomed new members Joanna Dyla (Stanford University), Robert Ellett (Joint Forces Staff College), Serafino Porcari (SUNY Buffalo), and Mary Dabney Wilson (Texas A & M University).

Program Reports

BIBCO: Sturtevant highlighted new BIBCO training endeavors. Harvard's Yenching Library's BIBCO training will be held this month. New manuals are in use for this training. Sturtevant cited a new CJK segment developed especially for this training. The trainers will be Thomas Tsai (LC) and Susan Summer (Columbia University).

NACO: NACO training and NACO work have become decentralized as more and more regional trainers are assuming training and review responsibilities. Sturtevant noted that NACO training documentation is being revised and supplemented at a fast pace. NACO training manuals for OCLC Connexion users are currently available; training manuals for RLIN clients will be available as soon as RLG's migration to the RLIN21 platform is completed.

The Cooperative Cataloging Team at the Library of Congress is revising the NACO Participants' Manual; a draft version will be available at the ALA Annual Meeting in Chicago in June 2005. NACO Series training documentation is currently available on the PCC Website; the materials are password protected. Sturtevant has received many access requests for these materials.

There are many NACO training events on the horizon. Robert Ellett (Joint Forces Staff College) is organizing and will train the Virginia Project in May 2005. Sherman Clarke (NYU) and George Prager (NYU-Law) will conduct a NACO session for art catalogers in the New York City area in June 2005. An Idaho NACO project is underway. Carl Horne (Indiana University) will train the University of Iowa. Gracie Gilliam (LC) is organizing a NACO Canada project. The National Library of Medicine has funded a NACO training session for medical libraries, to be held in St. Louis in September 2005. Paul Frank (LC) and Mary Dabney Wilson (Texas A & M University) will conduct the training. Duke University is interested in a NACO training session for new catalogers; Ana Cristán (LC) will conduct the training in August 2005. In the Philadelphia area, an RLIN21 client NACO training session is being planned.

Many of these training sessions are relying on NACO regional trainers, and there are more trainers waiting for training opportunities; Sturtevant suggested that a train the NACO trainer session may be in order. A NACO Series training session likely will take place at LC in Fall 2005. The new ALCTS/PCC course on Basic Creation of Name and Title Authorities will be offered as a pre-conference session at the ALA Annual Meeting in Chicago in June 2005.

Action item: Sturtevant will investigate offering a "Train the trainer" session at LC to accommodate the expanding pool of NACO trainers.

SACO: Existing SACO training materials are undergoing revision, and new materials are being produced. The ALCTS/PCC Basic Subject/LCSH Course has been a very popular and well-received training module. Training materials are available via LC's Cataloging Distribution Service CDS Website; a course description is available on the Cataloger's Learning Workshop Webpage. The Cataloger's Learning Workshop Webpage is a cooperative project of LC, the PCC, and ALCTS.

A future ALCTS/PCC LC Classification Course is being developed under the auspices of the PCC's Standing Committee on Training; existing training materials used by LC's Cooperative Cataloging Team will be used in the new course. Paul Frank (LC) will provide additional LC Classification training at Duke University in August 2005.

The SACO Participant's Manual is currently being revised, and a draft should be ready by the ALA Annual Meeting in Chicago in June 2005. The Cataloger's Learning Workshop Webpage also lists upcoming SACO-related training opportunities.

SACO Mentors Workshop: A SACO Mentors Workshop will be held as a pre-conference session at the ALA Annual Meeting in Chicago in June 2005. This invitational workshop, facilitated by John Mitchell (LC) and Adam Schiff (University of Washington) will train current SACO participants to work as mentors for new SACO participants, sharing the review of new SACO proposals among a broader range of PCC members.

Sturtevant directed the discussion to the PCC Tactical Plan 2004-2006 Objectives, Goal 3.1.6: "Strengthen training and documentation support for the efforts of libraries to maintain NACO and BIBCO participation." This goal was deemed to be a high priority by the PCC Policy Committee at its November 2004 meeting.

Sturtevant opened discussion of this goal with a brainstorming session. Often, when a designated NACO liaison leaves an institution, there is no back-up person to assure continuity of NACO involvement. Often the institution's NACO involvement ends. A suggestion to have a required NACO back-up designation was made, to assure continuity. Apprising institution administrators of the value of NACO participation was also mentioned as a positive measure. Robert Ellett mentioned that he is incorporating a session for administrators on the value of NACO as a part of his upcoming Virginia training project. The consensus of the group was that administrative support for NACO is crucial.

Steve Uthoff (GPO) suggested that NACO training materials be made available in many formats, allowing for a broader application for a given institution. Joanna Dyla (Stanford University) mentioned that an active NACO institution may become inactive when a supporting administrative staff member leaves, with no back-up remaining to continue NACO participation; Dyla stressed the importance of administrative support. Anthony Franks (LC) pointed out that it is essential to avoid a lapse in NACO participation. Members often do not notify the PCC when they leave an institution.

Mary Dabney Wilson (Texas A & M University) suggested that it should be a duty of the NACO liaison to notify the PCC if they are leaving their institution, so that continuity could be addressed before the institution became inactive. Emily Hicks (University of Dayton) added that including steps to be taken on turnover should be included as a marketing device in lobbying administrators on the values of NACO participation. Stressing the NACO program's values to administrators at the hiring stage is important.

David Banush (Cornell University) asked for a definition of a faltering institution. Sturtevant replied that institutions are held to certain production standards, and when an institution fails to meet its goals, it falls into the category of a "low producer." The PCC Steering Committee is consulted in these cases, and often a letter is sent to the institution offering assistance in the form of retraining, etc. Banush suggested that an additional follow-up letter may be helpful, sent to the institution a few months after the initial letter, to assess any changes in the institution's NACO contribution. Sturtevant noted that NACO monthly contributions previously were posted to the NACO Webpage; the ongoing reconstruction to the Webpage, however, has prevented statistics from being posted. The Cooperative Cataloging Team currently has a technical intern who is converting statistics into an Access database program, which may be programmed to generate quarterly reports.

Action item: Sturtevant will summarize the ideas and suggestions and forward them to the PCC Steering Committee.

Notification Procedures for Upgrading LC-Music Records

Joe Bartl, Music Team I Leader (LC) addressed the group on local CD workflow changes that may affect BIBCO members. An existing "LC Notification" process currently allows member institutions to report updates to LC "In Process" records in OCLC, using an online reporting form. Ana Cristán (LC) reported that this notification option was made at the request of Indiana University. When an IU cataloger found an LC "In Process" record for an item it was cataloging, it would report the upgrade to LC via the notification process. The Music and Sound Recordings Teams receive over 30,000 CDs per year, and is operating under a mandate that requires that they remain current with receipts. Under a now defunct program with OCLC, LC would send brief records to OCLC for matching and for authority control.

Under the new draft CD workflow, LC technical staff will search OCLC for copy cataloging records (currently, there is approximately a 50% hit rate for sound recording copy in OCLC); when no copy is found, staff will create a brief, IBC-like record with no heading fields added. The brief level of cataloging (encoding level 3 will be used) will provide less access than core level. These brief records will be sent to OCLC, where cooperative partners may enhance them to core level (it has not yet been determined whether the current LC Notification form will continue to be used in this case). The enhanced records may then be re-imported to LC as core level records.

Bartl noted that this is a stop-gap measure and that all workflows are temporary. The workflow is still in the draft stage. Full notification will be sent to all appropriate listservs when the workflow is approved for implementation.

ECIP at Cornell

David Bucknum (LC) reported on a new LC ECIP (Electronic Cataloging-In-Publication) program with Cornell University. This program, an outgrowth of an initiative from LC's Strategic Plan, is being used to process all electronic CIP material produced by Cornell University Press. Under the program, ECIP cataloging is completed on site at Cornell University by Cornell catalogers. Cornell catalogers complete all authority work and provide an LC Classification number for the records, then submit them electronically to LC for call number completion and for Dewey Classification assignment. LC then returns the records to Cornell University Press. Cornell should process approximately 100 titles per year. Cornell has already processed ten ECIP records, and LC has already received seven of those records.

Northwestern University is also participating in the program; Northwestern should process approximately fifty titles per year. Under the original ECIP program plan, participating institutions must be PCC members, Voyager institutions, and have their own university press.

David Banush (Cornell University) reported that Cornell catalogers participating in the program have found it to be refreshing. It is important to note that the process is seamless and that Cornell University Press has not needed to change any workflows. The program's software has worked very well. Records in the program may be identified by the presence of 040 $a NIC/DLC $c NIC and an LC local 985 field containing nic/cip. No other local fields are added.

The automation aspects of the project are appealing. Expansion of the program will be considered after the pilot stage is assessed. A possible network of libraries doing this type of work may be considered. The turnaround time for processing a Cornell ECIP record is in accordance with LC's Priority 1 level for processing CIP materials: once a record is received at LC for call number completion and Dewey assignment, it is forwarded to Cornell University Press within one day.

TrackER

Allene Hayes, Digital Projects Coordinator (LC) and Stan Lerner, Senior Programmer (LC) led a presentation on TrackER (Tracking Electronic Resources), an LC online traffic manager for recommending, selecting, and tracking remote-access electronic resources. Hayes provided an overview of TrackER, and Lerner demonstrated the system to the group. TrackER is based on LC's ECIP program, another "virtual" tracking system to manage the flow of electronic cataloging data. TrackER has been in production since April 2003. It tracks an electronic resource from the selection stage through the entire cataloging stage, to the access stage. In addition, TrackER can generate statistical reports on electronic resources that are in, or have been tracked through, the system. TrackER also allows searching by all users, and it has a maintenance module that allows input of record update requests.

Hayes reported a substantial interest in TrackER from an ALA presentation on the system. A module is being developed for distributing TrackER to non-LC institutions. Lerner outlined the automation aspects of TrackER: it is an Oracle application on a UNIX machine. It does not require local installation of software. UCLA is currently testing the system, and other testers are being sought.

Cataloger Learning Workshop

(CLW) Editorial Team - Cataloger's Learning Workshop Website

Ana Cristán, Cooperative Cataloging Team, on detail to the Cataloging Policy and Support Office (LC) presented a brief overview of the Cataloger's Learning Workshop Website .

As an introduction to the Cataloger's Learning Workshop Website, Cristán discussed her work on the CLW Editorial Team. The CLW team is the LC-Cataloging Distribution Service's (CDS) counter-part to the Joint PCC/CCS Committee on Continuing Education Training Materials that is working with trainers to convey the need to CDS for maintenance and/or enhancement of training materials currently used for the workshops that have been developed by the joint PCC-ALCTS task groups and collected under the Cooperative Cataloging Training Web site.

The CLW editorial team is charged with drafting guidelines for authors, publishers, sponsors, and purchasers, with the goal of smoothing the process of providing electronic access to training materials, as well as with developing maintenance procedures for training materials. These procedures will allow for convenient and appropriate use of training materials being developed by the joint task groups of the PCC and ALCTS, as well as from the task groups convened under the auspices of the Cataloging for the 21st Century Initiative that was born out of the Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium, hosted by LC in 2000. More information on Cat21 is available at: http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/cat21/aboutcat21.html

The CLW Editorial Team, chaired by Bruce Johnson (LC-DCS), consists of four members from LC/CDS, five members from LC/PCC, the chair of the PCC's Standing Committee on Training, and one representative from Cat21. Membership of the editorial team is expected to diminish as the procedures for document delivery and maintenance are worked out.

The Cataloger's Learning Workshop Website is a result of CDS' taking the leadership role in document delivery for training workshops. The Website is self-described as "a clearinghouse portal for cataloging and metadata resources for information workers. The scope of Cataloger's Learning Workshop includes bibliographic information training in the context of formal library and information science degree programs, as well as continuing education for library practitioners." Cataloger's Learning Workshop provides training information and access to training materials on one website and may be accessed at: http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/

Use of 670 subfield $u in NARs

Sturtevant moderated an open discussion of the use of subfield $u in NARs. Although the use of subfield $u in 670 fields is defined in the MARC21 Authority Format, LC Guidelines instruct catalogers not to code 670 subfield $u. DCM Z1 has no reference to 670 subfield $u. Updates are anticipated for both the LC Guidelines and DCM Z1 to allow for 670 subfield $u coding to be implemented. Some PCC libraries are already coding 670 subfield $u, however, in spite of the LC Guidelines. The ensuing discussion was centered on how guidelines for the use of 670 subfield $u would be developed, and how implementation would take place.

The British Library was unable to adopt the use of 670 subfield $u when implementing their new ILS, although LC is inquiring again about their plans to implement. LC would like to implement 670 subfield $u in the near future, but does not yet have a firm answer. Implementation would allow for use in both Name and Subject authority records. OCLC currently can accommodate 670 subfield $u. RLG will enable 670 subfield $u with production release of the RLIN21 client that supports NACO input, expected in May.

Currently, the standard for providing the source of information for an Internet resource is in the 670 subfield $a of the authority record. Although DCM Z1 discourages the identification of an Internet resource by its URL, preferring the name of the resource instead, often URLs are input in 670 subfield $a. Joanna Dyla (Stanford University) pointed out that there even is an example in DCM Z1 670 of a URL being coded in 670 subfield $a. That example would need to be deleted if the use of 670 subfield $u is approved. Coding 670 subfield $u would provide a link for more information; it would not take the place of the traditional use of 670 subfields $a and $b. Essential information would continue to be coded in 670 subfield $b, in case the Internet resource cited in 670 subfield $u either changes its URL, or disappears altogether.

Links would not be retroactively checked or maintained for accuracy. Lacking the capability to do so, LC will need to rely on others in this case. Some systems already have link check capabilities. A suggestion was made to add a "no longer valid as of [date of search]" in cases of changed or defunct links. Another suggestion was made to define MACR21 tag 856 subfield $x or $z to contain information on a link that is no longer valid.

670 subfield $u would not be coded in all cases; in the cases of certain "standard" sites (BGN, GNIS), 670 subfields $a and $b would not be supplemented by a 670 subfield $u.

The broader issues of whether the attempt to allow the use of 670 subfield $u should be made at all, and the actual importance of 670 subfield $u was raised. David Banush (Cornell University) suggested that URLs not be coded at all in 670 fields, and that the existing example in DCM Z1 with a URL in 670 subfield $a be deleted. Ana Cristán (LC) said that because catalogers are adding URLs to 670 fields anyway, in spite of existing documentation, this practice should be codified by the examples in DCM Z1. Cristán suggested adding both "good" and "bad" practice examples of URLs to DCM Z1.

If the implementation of 670 subfield $u does move ahead, guidelines and examples will be added to existing documentation and training manuals. Application of the 670 subfield $u provision will be optional.

Notes from Interim Report of TG on Monographic Aggregators

Becky Culbertson (University of California San Diego), member of the Task Group on Monographic Aggregators, presented an overview of the work of the task group, and brought four discussion questions from the group. The group is seeking the input of BIBCO members.

1) Is there a mechanism to harmonize values where possible in MARC fields for vendor supplied or created bibliographic records? Is the use of Descriptive cataloging form "i" (ISBD) sufficient, or would "a" (AACR2) be required? Response: Descriptive cataloging form "u" would suffice. "i" cannot be guaranteed if records are built from various sources.

2) Does Encoding Level 3 need a redefinition to include machine derived or generated records? Response: Encoding level 3 was originally implemented with CanMARC harmonization. Use of Encoding level 3 records would need to be arranged with OCLC; a policy would need to be worked out prior to implementation.

3) What role will the PCC play in working with vendors? Response: This is an ongoing problem. How do institutions convince vendors to do this? The PCC can issue all the standards it wants, but institutions need to require it of the vendor. What would motivate a vendor to provide better records for marketing? Customers need to give the message to vendors. For example, Ohiolink is giving guidelines to vendors. Catalogers developed these guidelines.

4) Is there a way to clarify the use of 534 Original Version Note field in answer to the varied responses to the survey? Response: There was no consensus in the task force or from consultants on the use of 534. Should there be a MARBI proposal to redefine the use of the 534 field in this case? The current definition seems to be contextual to the type of material. "Reproduction" is difficult to define. LC does not use MARC field 534.

Sturtevant closed the day's meeting at 2:00 PM with thanks to all the day's presenters, and with an invitation to inform her of any recommendations or comments. She also extended an invitation to all to attend the PCC meetings in Chicago at the ALA Annual Meeting in June.